Can I just say that I, like many, have had enough of Hilary Clinton?! Someone please explain to me what internal or external factors of gianormous proportion could allow her to call for a recount at the Democratic National Convention and just how such an effort would bring the party together? Didn’t she step down? So, what’s the point of this catharsis she’s calling for?
Last week on the Today Show (Aug.4), Howard Fineman, senior political correspondent for Newsweek, compared dealing with the Clintons to competing in the decathlon—the most difficult sport in the Olympics. He also posed two questions: “Will the Clintons help Obama?”, and “Does Obama really need them?”
Throughout the whole political mess, Obama has given new meaning to grace under pressure. He may be taking the adage—keep your friends close and your enemies closer—a little too far. Allowing Hilary to speak at the DNC in a couple of weeks could be an ugly situation for the Senator from Illinois. It’s impossible to muzzle her, as we saw in clips from the Unity Tour, which Fineman described as anything but unifying. And former President Clinton’s statement regarding Obama being ready to lead wasn’t exactly warm and fuzzy:
One could argue that no one is ever ready to be president. I certainly learned a lot my first year . . .
One could argue that a president should exercise more discretion.
This plea from Hilary Clinton reminds me of the second season finale of The Apprentice, Donald Trump’s show on NBC. He had two top finalists, one a black male, the other a white female. Randall Pinkett was clearly the winner; he outperformed all other candidates from day one of the show. When it came to the final announcement, Trump told Pinkett he was hired. But what should have been Randall Pinkett’s moment in the spotlight resulted in a dimming of lights. Trump cut the celebration short by posing the question: What about a co-apprentice? Now, why was that necessary? And if it was so important, given that the show was Trump’s why couldn’t he just announce that there were two winners instead of one? Instead, Pinkett was put in the awkward position to reiterate the rules. And he stated, "the show is not called the apprenti, but the apprentice." And the title was his, secured in a sea of boos and reduced applause.
Somehow the rules always change when it appears a black man is about to win the game. Why is that?
No one wants to about talk race, but escaping the race issue is never possible. In an interview several years ago with Barbara Walters, Novelist Alice Walker stated, “the color of one’s skin is the first thing you see when you look at a person—there’s no way around it. [It’s absurd for anyone to say they don’t see color.]” While Senator Obama is not the first African American to run for president, he is definitely the first to make it this far and with this level of support. Had Hilary lost to some one who looked more like her, would we be bracing ourselves for her comments at the DNC?
Until the “real” Hilary was unveiled during the campaign, I was a fan. The first woman president was going to do great things for the country and the world. Now I wish she would just bow out—not gracefully—way too late for that, but let it go, hell it’s gone. She stepped down, now sit down! This Greek drama Hilary’s talking about is her doing. Why do Democrats need to hear anything else about Hilary’s bid for office before they, we, can rally behind Senator Obama? Enough already!
I once thought that Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama would have been a great combination in the White House. But not any longer. Way too much of a power struggle would exist—no unity whatsoever—just constant one-ups—not a good look for international or national affairs. History has shown that a divided party does not win presidential elections. Clinton claims that she wants to give the people a chance to be heard by calling for a recount at the convention. So what did she hear when she withdrew from the race and when did that message change?
Sources: The Today Show, August 4, 2008; Interview with Matt Lauer and Howard Fineman
The Apprentice, Season 2
My memory of the Barbara Walters interview with Alice Walker, 20/20, years ago on the property that inspired The Color Purple
Monday, August 11, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Book Review: The Psychology of the Internet
Written by Patricia Wallace and published by the Cambridge University Press (1999), The Psychology of the Internet is not what I expected or hoped it to be. Wallace, who is the Senior Director of Information Services and Instructional Technologies in the Center for Talented Youth at John Hopkins University, received great reviews for her work from Publisher’s Weekly, American Forecaster Newsletter, and USA Today. So it must just be me.
Spanning 255 pages with interesting chapter titles such as “Online Masks and Masquerades,” “Linking and Loving on the Net,” and “Group Dynamics in Cyberspace,” the book is not a terribly difficult read, but it is not a particularly interesting read, in my opinion. Wallace states in chapter one that the book ”is about psychology more than technology.” That should have been my clue to select another book. The book jacket review by Technology Journalist Julian Dibbell should have been a red flag as well: “clear, concise, comprehensive . . . should be reading for every armchair cybershrink.”
I was searching for a book that would help me understand how to develop and enhance my techniques to attract people to my product or issue on the Internet. I found a piece that describes the behavior of avid Internet users, of which I am not, and it does so from a human behavior standpoint. At best, for me, the book is a challenge to gain a better understanding of the social context of the web. Wallace divides the landscape of the Internet into several categories: the World Wide Web, Email, asynchronous discussions, synchronous discussions, and MUDs (once known as multi-user dungeons because of the game Dungeon and Dragons). She states that the book attempts to examine how we behave when we act or interact online and why the characteristics of the medium can affect our behavior in surprising and sometimes troubling ways. She uses the results of research studies and online experiments to demonstrate the impact of role play and virtual worlds on users—the senders and receivers of messages. Examining well-known Internet controversies such as Napster, Wallace poses the question: Does the net deaden our senses to what we regard as ethical or moral?
Wallace also discusses the development of an online persona, or—my words—the way viewers assess you. Are you warm or cold; shy or very engaging; male or female; attractive or appearance challenged? Usually, face to face, these things are a littler easier to assess than online. Online, words and images are the only tools of communication. In person, you have body language, facial expressions, and vocal inflections. Words on a screen can’t reflect the tone of voice or glaring eyes. Wallace cites an early research study (1978) by Starr Roxanne Hiltz and Murray Turoff that examined socioemotional expression online. Results indicated that people seem much cooler and task-oriented than they really are in person. The study also showed that people were more apt to express disagreement online and less apt to concede a point of view in order to ease tension. As email and online forums grew in popularity, so did the need to personalize communication. Thus, emoticons were born—you know: 8-) smile & ;-) wink—as an attempt to take some of the chill off of the written word. And since the book’s publication, even these images, which we can create from our keyboards, have been upgraded to bright, colorful, animated images and don’t forget the avatars of virtual reality worlds—all with the goal of better conveying our personas—whether true or desired.
Wallace points out that the Internet is still a very young enterprise and users are still discovering how to navigate and manipulate it. In chapter nine she describes the Internet as a time sink driven by our own behavior. The term time sink implies that users, especially those new to Internet use, can become so engulfed in surfing the net that they lose all sense of time. And not just in the sense of minutes, seconds, and hours; but also time with family and diminishing real life social activities. According to Wallace, the time sink aspect of the Internet is receiving more attention because of the HomeNet trial (late 1990s). Conducted over a two year period in Pittsburg area, the trial studied Internet activities of a sample group of households. The study concluded that increased Internet use is not necessarily beneficial to one’s well-being or social involvement. According to the study, which was organized by Robert Kraut and Carnegie Mellon University, increased Internet use was also associated with greater feelings of loneliness and depression over time, for some. Wallace noted that Kraut hypothesized that people whose Internet use is higher may be substituting poorer quality social relationships for the stronger ones they had in real life, thus the sense of longing and depression. Wallace further notes that on the other end of the spectrum, some users display compulsive behavior tendencies, they have to be online, unable to logoff or be away from their computer. With today’s mobile technology, Internet access is no longer confined to a desktop computer. Cell phones, iPods, laptops allow users to remain connected 24/7—way too much for me. Though once thought of as a joke, psychiatrists are now giving serious thought to as to whether or not there may be such a thing as Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD).
Unless you are software developer or a psychologist, I am not sure that this book is for you. It may be an interesting read for the curious, but it does not seem to have a lot of practical application for the PR practitioner. It may, however, provide good cocktail conversation and help you be more alert to your online behavior and the impact you may have on others—in the virtual and the real world.
Spanning 255 pages with interesting chapter titles such as “Online Masks and Masquerades,” “Linking and Loving on the Net,” and “Group Dynamics in Cyberspace,” the book is not a terribly difficult read, but it is not a particularly interesting read, in my opinion. Wallace states in chapter one that the book ”is about psychology more than technology.” That should have been my clue to select another book. The book jacket review by Technology Journalist Julian Dibbell should have been a red flag as well: “clear, concise, comprehensive . . . should be reading for every armchair cybershrink.”
I was searching for a book that would help me understand how to develop and enhance my techniques to attract people to my product or issue on the Internet. I found a piece that describes the behavior of avid Internet users, of which I am not, and it does so from a human behavior standpoint. At best, for me, the book is a challenge to gain a better understanding of the social context of the web. Wallace divides the landscape of the Internet into several categories: the World Wide Web, Email, asynchronous discussions, synchronous discussions, and MUDs (once known as multi-user dungeons because of the game Dungeon and Dragons). She states that the book attempts to examine how we behave when we act or interact online and why the characteristics of the medium can affect our behavior in surprising and sometimes troubling ways. She uses the results of research studies and online experiments to demonstrate the impact of role play and virtual worlds on users—the senders and receivers of messages. Examining well-known Internet controversies such as Napster, Wallace poses the question: Does the net deaden our senses to what we regard as ethical or moral?
Wallace also discusses the development of an online persona, or—my words—the way viewers assess you. Are you warm or cold; shy or very engaging; male or female; attractive or appearance challenged? Usually, face to face, these things are a littler easier to assess than online. Online, words and images are the only tools of communication. In person, you have body language, facial expressions, and vocal inflections. Words on a screen can’t reflect the tone of voice or glaring eyes. Wallace cites an early research study (1978) by Starr Roxanne Hiltz and Murray Turoff that examined socioemotional expression online. Results indicated that people seem much cooler and task-oriented than they really are in person. The study also showed that people were more apt to express disagreement online and less apt to concede a point of view in order to ease tension. As email and online forums grew in popularity, so did the need to personalize communication. Thus, emoticons were born—you know: 8-) smile & ;-) wink—as an attempt to take some of the chill off of the written word. And since the book’s publication, even these images, which we can create from our keyboards, have been upgraded to bright, colorful, animated images and don’t forget the avatars of virtual reality worlds—all with the goal of better conveying our personas—whether true or desired.
Wallace points out that the Internet is still a very young enterprise and users are still discovering how to navigate and manipulate it. In chapter nine she describes the Internet as a time sink driven by our own behavior. The term time sink implies that users, especially those new to Internet use, can become so engulfed in surfing the net that they lose all sense of time. And not just in the sense of minutes, seconds, and hours; but also time with family and diminishing real life social activities. According to Wallace, the time sink aspect of the Internet is receiving more attention because of the HomeNet trial (late 1990s). Conducted over a two year period in Pittsburg area, the trial studied Internet activities of a sample group of households. The study concluded that increased Internet use is not necessarily beneficial to one’s well-being or social involvement. According to the study, which was organized by Robert Kraut and Carnegie Mellon University, increased Internet use was also associated with greater feelings of loneliness and depression over time, for some. Wallace noted that Kraut hypothesized that people whose Internet use is higher may be substituting poorer quality social relationships for the stronger ones they had in real life, thus the sense of longing and depression. Wallace further notes that on the other end of the spectrum, some users display compulsive behavior tendencies, they have to be online, unable to logoff or be away from their computer. With today’s mobile technology, Internet access is no longer confined to a desktop computer. Cell phones, iPods, laptops allow users to remain connected 24/7—way too much for me. Though once thought of as a joke, psychiatrists are now giving serious thought to as to whether or not there may be such a thing as Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD).
Unless you are software developer or a psychologist, I am not sure that this book is for you. It may be an interesting read for the curious, but it does not seem to have a lot of practical application for the PR practitioner. It may, however, provide good cocktail conversation and help you be more alert to your online behavior and the impact you may have on others—in the virtual and the real world.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Smog So Thick You Could Cut It With a Knife
In just two days, millions will tune in to the Olympic Games in Beijing, China. All week long NBC’s Today Show has been broadcasting from the host city, bringing glimpses of the beautiful countryside and cultural traditions into America’s homes and business—that is, as much as can be conveyed via delayed feed. In the 10 a.m. segment on Wednesday, Aug. 6, Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee talked about a photo that appeared on the cover of the August 5th edition of the New York Post with the headline Peking Yuck. The photo was of a U.S. Olympic cyclists arriving in Beijing wearing a face mask—surely a diplomatic don’t! At first glance, it looks like a terrorist or political protest—each violations of the Olympic code of honor. Then viewers learn that the athletes were apparently following a mandate from their exercise physiologist in an effort to shield them from the effects of heavy pollution.
According to the article, Chinese government officials have been working on the smog problem since early this month, implementing strategies such as pulling half of the city’s vehicles off the road—that’s about 1.5 million cars—and closing some factories in the capital and surrounding areas. Arne Ljungqvist, chairman of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) medical commission, was quoted as stating that the city’s air quality is being evaluated by the standards set forth by the World Health Organization (WHO). If a picture is worth a thousand words, photos on the Post’s website would cause viewers to ask “just what are the WHO’s standards?” The smog seems to be thick enough to cut with a knife—literally.
Though Ljungqvist believes that there’s no need for athletes to wear masks unless they suffer from respiratory ailments, U.S. Cyclist Michael Friedman believes the mask is a necessary precaution. He is quoted as saying “Who knows how bad it’s going to be in a few days; so if you can resist any contaminants, then you know it’s better performance hopefully.”
The article goes on to say that the IOC will receive data every hour to monitor the air quality during the games and take necessary action as needed. Sooooooo, why are we conducting outdoor activities there? Surely, the smog problem didn’t arrive last week. How long have we known we were going to China? Do you think the cars needed to come off the road, say in May or June?
According to WHO’s website, new Air Quality Guidelines were unveiled in 2006 as a challenge to governments throughout the world to improve air quality in their cities in order to protect people’s health. The organization enlisted the brain power of more than 80 leading scientists and conducted research in various regions around the world. They stressed the importance of reducing the levels of pollutants that result from the burning of fossil and other fuels—PM10. The site further notes that air pollution is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths worldwide per year, with the largest impact felt in developing countries. But the establishment of air quality controls is up to each individual nation. Guidelines developed by WHO provide a blueprint for nations to follow. Nonetheless, according to the Post article, the WHO representative in China is none to happy about media’s “exaggeration of the problem.” Ljungqvist stated to Post that the WHO standard was only a guideline for protecting the long-term health of local residents, not for temporary visitors such as Olympic athletes and visitors.
Hmmm. So, if I, who happen to suffer from bronchial asthma, went to China and started wheezing, should I not worry? Afterall, I would be a temporary guest. But what about temporary guests, athletes, who have pre-existing conditions—known or unknown. Should they not be concerned? Olympic historian David Wallechinsky has recorded that four athletes have died during the Olympics—two during practice and two during competition. From a blogpost on Google Answers, Wallechinsky is the source of information about Danish cyclist Knut Jensen (1960 Olympics) who died during the road race. Conflicting posts cite a collapse from sunstroke resulting in a fractured skull and a collapse from ingesting performance enhancers. In 2007, Elite distance runner Ryan Shay collapsed during the Men’s Marathon Olympic trials. Shay was diagnosed with an enlarged heart at age 14. Doctors cleared him for try outs.
In the Post, Ljungqvist is also quoted as saying that athletes in Beijing will face the same conditions of high heat and humidity that were prevalent in Atlanta in 1996 and Athens in 2004. Now, I lived in Atlanta for 13 years and was there during the Olympics. Heat and humidity are infamous in the Peach State; but smog—no way. Compared to the photos of Beijing, the smog in the ATL in 1996 was the equivalent of a hiccup cloud. Furthermore, let’s talk about cleanup efforts.
The location of the Olympic Village in Atlanta was in a rough part of town known for high drug trade, crime, and a high homeless population. When 1996 rolled in, the burning question for many was—where are all the homeless people? The city cleaned up. Though the moving of people and the clearing of smog don’t compare, the point is clean up efforts in China, according to the Post, began earlier this month. A bit late, don’t you think?
The location of the Olympic Village in Atlanta was in a rough part of town known for high drug trade, crime, and a high homeless population. When 1996 rolled in, the burning question for many was—where are all the homeless people? The city cleaned up. Though the moving of people and the clearing of smog don’t compare, the point is clean up efforts in China, according to the Post, began earlier this month. A bit late, don’t you think?
Sources: The Today Show, Wednesday, Aug. 6, 10 a.m. segment with Hoda Kotb & Kathie Lee
The New York Post, August 5, 2008 via www.nypost.com
World Health Organization web site
Google Answers: Olympic injuries
Foxnews.com, November 4. 2007, Associated Press story
Photos: New York Post web site, Beijing Smog Gallery. Left: U.S. Cyclist Jennie Reed; Right: Smog on the Olympic Green in Beijing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
